Democrats' Financing Plan Challenged

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21188-2004Jan15.html

Democratic Party plans to create a "shadow party" of independent groups backed with $300 million in soft-money contributions face mounting legal challenges that -- if successful -- would increase the Republicans' already substantial financial advantage going into the November elections.

The attack on the shadow party gained momentum yesterday, when campaign watchdogs filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission, and the FEC separately decided to issue a broad ruling on the activities of independent groups by mid-May.

Those actions followed Republican threats to initiate a congressional inquiry and a party request to the FEC intended to force a quicker ruling on the activities of Democratic groups.

At stake is the ability of pro-Democratic groups to mount a voter-mobilization "ground war" and a televised "air war" to compete with the well-funded programs of the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney reelection committee.

[bluestateguy]

1. My favorite number:

527!

[Emillereid]

2. What's the legal basis of this challenge?

I mean, the repukes have always made use of their PACs, etc. to get out their message while not explicitly promoting a particular candidate. If they manage to stop us from exercising our freedom of speech this way, that's tantamount to one party totalitarian oppression of an effective opposition. Fascism here we come...

[mouse7]

3. Supreme Court basically said nothing will change before election

The Supreme Court basically said in the McCain/Feingold ruling that they have ruled on the rules for this election cycle, and these rules are those rules.

What happens after 2004 is anyone's guess, but someone had to establish the rules for this election, so they did it.

[La_Serpiente]

4. I love how the article

donated 1 percent of its content to the Republican Leadership Council :eyes:

[Yupster]

5. The idea behind the issue ads

were to allow groups like the Sierra Club or National Rifle Association to create ads on their issues. Other examples would be NARAL or the Club for Growth.

The difference with these "shadow party" groups is their issue is how can we get around the new laws to elect more Democrats.

Now you might say that the NRA's issue is electing Republicans, but they'd say it was protecting gun-owner's rights. You might say the Sierra Club's issue is electing Democrats, but they'd say it was protecting the environment.

The "shadow party" groups formed by Harold Ickes et al are pretty open about what they're doing. The same guys who pushed campaign finance reform for all those years were the first ones who figured out how to make the new law into a laughing-stock.

The Republicans have said that if these "shadow party" groups are allowed, they'll set theirs up within months too, and that will pretty much be it for 10 years of fighting for campaign finance reform.

I've concluded that all those years of politicians talking about McCain-Feingold in their speeches was just a whole lot of BS. I bet a lot of readers will say, "well, no sh_t Sherlock," but I actually believed them when they said they wanted to limit donations to $ 2,000 and take the big bucks out of politics. Naivete, thy name is Yupster.

[Gman]

6. Money will find its way into politics unless its sealed out

like you would seal something against water leaking in.

[yellowcanine]

7. But Republicans have no problem with Tom Delay's plan

to use a charity fundraiser as a means to wine and dine delegates to the Republican National Convention - meaning that unlimited tax-deductible contributions from corporations could pay for entertaining Republican politicians. No hyprocisy there that I can see.

[BenFranklinUSA]

8. Democratic Party Already Coalition Party

Seems illogical for GOP to oppose for the following reasons:

1) Any advantage to us could as easily be advantage for them, too.
2) Democratic Party already made up of factions
3) They'll lose on 'free speech' (although wacky SupremeCt lately ;/ )

Seems logical to oppose for the following reason:

1) Makes us spend money in court we don't have to waste.
2) Could lead to tighter restrictions on soft money if this shinanigan stoke/breeds public opposition.

Punt.